Plaintiff Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives (“Committee” or “Oversight Committee”) brings this civil action againstDefendant Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, to enforce a dulyauthorized, issued and served Committee subpoena for documents, namely, the Subpoena to theHonorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Att’y Gen. of the United States (Oct. 11, 2011) (“Holder Subpoena”), attached as Exhibit A. This lawsuit, which is expressly authorized by the UnitedStates House of Representatives (“House”), arises out of:

Case 1:12-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 41

2



the obstruction by the U.S. Department of Justice (“Department” or “DOJ”) of anOversight Committee investigation – an investigation the Department hasacknowledged is appropriate and legitimate – of a now-discredited DOJ law-enforcement operation known as “Operation Fast and Furious”;



the Attorney General’s contumacious refusal to comply with the Holder Subpoena, in particular, his refusal to produce documents that would enable theCommittee (and the American people) to understand how and why theDepartment provided false information to Congress and otherwise obstructed theCommittee’s concededly-legitimate investigation into Operation Fast and Furious;



the President’s assertion – not directly, but through the Deputy Attorney General – of “Executive privilege” as to some unproduced documents that are of particular interest to the Committee;

1

and



the Committee’s need for those documents – documents it cannot obtainelsewhere – in order to discharge its Article I responsibility to conduct oversightover the Department so that the Committee, and the Congress more generally,may determine whether the Department’s malfeasance warrants additions to, or changes in, existing federal laws.

1

Letter from James M. Cole, Dep’y Att’y Gen., to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman,Oversight Comm., at 1 (June 20, 2012) (“June 20, 2012 Privilege Letter”) (“[T]he President hasasserted [E]xecutive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents.”). For theconvenience of the Court, documents referenced in this Complaint – other than those with their own individual hyperlinks – are available for review athttp://oversight.house.gov/documents-in-support-of-civil-action-by-oversight-committee-vs-eric-holder/.

Case 1:12-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 41

3While the Committee is entitled to all documents responsive to the Holder Subpoena thathave not been produced, the Committee seeks in this action to enforce the Holder Subpoena onlyas to a limited subset of responsive documents, namely those documents relevant to theDepartment’s efforts to obstruct the Committee’s investigation. The principal legal issue presented here is whether the Attorney General may withhold that limited subset on the basis of “Executive privilege” where there has been no suggestion that the documents at issue implicateor otherwise involve any advice to the President, and where the Department’s actions do notinvolve core constitutional functions of the President. No Court has ever held that “Executive privilege” extends anywhere near as far as theAttorney General here contends that it does. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that theAttorney General’s conception of the reach of “Executive privilege,” were it to be accepted,would cripple congressional oversight of Executive branch agencies, to the very great detrimentof the Nation and our constitutional structure. Accordingly, the Committee asks this Court toreject the Attorney General’s assertion of “Executive privilege” and order him forthwith tocomply with the Committee’s subpoena, as set forth below.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

In February 2011, the Oversight Committee – the principal investigativeCommittee of the House – commenced an investigation into a DOJ law enforcement operationknown as Operation Fast and Furious (and related matters). Operation Fast and Furious, whichwas operational between approximately November 2009 and January 2011, involved “gunwalking,” a controversial and now discredited tactic of knowingly permitting firearms purchasedillegally in the United States to be unlawfully transferred to third-party possessors, with thoseillegally-purchased and unlawfully-transferred firearms intentionally not being interdicted by law